Electronic submission of estate inventories

Mikael Eskilandersson (SD)

Madam Speaker! Today we are addressing a concrete and important step in the government's work for regulatory simplification, namely that estate inventories and estate notifications shall be able to be submitted digitally to Skatteverket. When someone passes away, relatives are often struck by great sorrow. Furthermore, they are forced to grapple with practical issues and administration. In such cases, the state should not add unnecessary complications on top of this in these people's already pressured situation. With the bill, we make it easier for ordinary people. We enable electronic submission and remove unnecessary formal requirements, for example, the requirement for certified copies.

This is a modernization that reduces administration, shortens lead times and makes the handling smoother for everyone. At the same time, the paper option will remain available for those who need it.

We also adjust the terminology, as it is so beautifully called, that is to say, which words are used. "Gode män" in these contexts are replaced with "förrättningspersoner". This is to avoid misunderstandings and confusion with "god man" according to the Parental Code, which is something else. That too is a typical simplification of rules. It provides a clearer language, fewer unnecessary moments, and better service to our citizens.

Madam Speaker! This is not an isolated issue. It is part of the ongoing simplification of rules in which the government has step by step removed unnecessary obstacles and made it easier to do the right thing.

We have achieved a lot during this mandate period. In the Committee on Civil Affairs, we have previously handled several regulatory simplifications and removed complicating rules, not least in the new Planning and Building Act but also through new rules for, for example, interest compensation. It may look like small changes, but they are nevertheless always for the better, for the simpler, for what works for people. We will continue to simplify and improve with joint forces. That is something we completely agree on in the government basis.

Madam Speaker! This bill also covers a couple of announcements. I suspect that the debate will be about them significantly more than about the bill itself.

The first announcement concerns the need to follow up on whether the four-month time limit in custody investigations can negatively affect the quality. It is a serious issue, as quality and the children's safety must always be at the center.

The Government considers that the announcement has been addressed because action has actually been taken to strengthen quality where it is most important for risk assessments and the child's safety in custody, housing, and visitation matters. Through the assignment to the relevant authorities, support for social services is strengthened, and the conditions for more robust and accurate assessments are increased.

It is also important to say that a follow-up must be conducted in a way that leads to practical benefit, so that it does not just become a report on a report. The government's actions are about improving the quality in reality in the everyday life where social services and family law operate. Therefore, it is reasonable to assess that the announcement is finalized.

Madam Speaker! That we also safeguard efficiency in the handling is also part of the work on simplifying regulations. Shorter lead times and clearer processes must never be achieved at the expense of security. But unnecessarily long processes should also not be required when better tools and methods exist.

Madam Speaker! It is somewhat surprising that there is such great opposition to considering the announcement as answered. This applies particularly from the Social Democrats' point of view, given that the Social Democrats opposed the announcement. They opposed it on the grounds that this form of follow-up was completely unnecessary because the government was dealing with it anyway. Now, it is apparently considered wrong to remove the same announcement that one did not think was needed from the beginning.

Madam Speaker! The second announcement concerns the possibility of confirming parenthood digitally before the child's birth. The Government has here made the assessment that the announcement is answered by having taken the position: The current practice works, has broad acceptance, and creates, according to the Government, sufficient security for the child. Since the government parties agree on this interpretation and the Social Democrats have never supported the announcement, there is no longer any majority in the Riksdag to interpret the announcement as anything more far-reaching than that.

On behalf of the Sweden Democrats, we demand significantly more than the announcement, or what the government has interpreted into the announcement. We demand an entirely different system for establishing paternity. We want paternity, if possible, to be clarified and established before the child is born, so that as many children as possible are born with two known parents. To this, joint custody should also be linked, unless there are obvious reasons against it.

But such a new system for parenthood and joint custody is not what is highlighted in the announcement. There also does not seem to be a parliamentary majority for such a more far-reaching change, as I can only see that it is we in Sverigedemokraterna and, to some extent, Centerpartiet who want to change this.

Since there is no actual majority for anything else, it is reasonable to consider the announcement answered, even though my party would, of course, like to see something else in this area.

In conclusion, Madam Speaker, I move for approval of the committee's proposal and rejection of the reservations.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Laila Naraghi (S)

Madam Speaker! We are fundamentally positive about the change that is now being made with the legislative changes regarding the electronic submission of estate inventories. It is good that it becomes simpler.

Digitalization is fundamentally positive, but it must occur with respect for privacy and legal certainty, Madam Speaker. The government's analysis of the risks is superficial, we argue. The government identifies problems but does not describe concrete protections or monitoring mechanisms. Unfortunately, the Tidö parties are turning a blind eye to how the changes can be exploited by criminals and strike against individuals, and the government has not taken sufficient measures to anticipate and prevent it.

Madam Speaker! In the bill, the question is raised that personal data of a sensitive nature hereby, as a result of the legislative changes, becomes searchable. This entails risks and problems that must be considered but which the government is not acting against. It is troubling. We Social Democrats see great risks with this, which it is necessary for the government to consider and account for, including the fact that regulatory changes may be required.

Madam Speaker! Secondary use of public data is something positive when it occurs in aggregated or anonymized form and contributes to societal benefit. This applies, for example, to research, innovation or more efficient administration.

The problem arises when tasks can be combined in a way that makes individual individuals identifiable, which enables commercial exploitation. There is a real risk both from a privacy perspective and for the trust in the state as an information manager. For us Social Democrats, it is also necessary in this context to mark our line: Digitalization and privacy must go hand in hand.

Madam Speaker! In the bill, the government also states that the Riksdag's previous announcement regarding quality assurance in custody investigations has been addressed and finalized. We do not share this assessment, as the reported measures do not correspond to what the Riksdag decided in the announcement.

The assignment to Socialstyrelsen and MFOF that the government refers to as the reason why the announcement is fulfilled shall not be final reported until next year. Based on how the announcement is designed, including the motions approved in the announcement, it cannot be considered to be fulfilled.

We await the government's next communication 75 to see its account on the matter. We will then have to return to our assessment of whether this can be considered addressed and finalized. We state this in our motion reservation number 2, which I also, Madam Speaker, move for approval on behalf of the Social Democrats.

Madam Speaker! Regarding the second announcement, which the government considers finalized, concerning digital confirmation of parenthood before birth, it was pushed through during the previous parliamentary term by SD, M, KD, L, and C. We welcome that most of these parties have changed their minds and now, like us, do not wish to implement this. It honors Minister of Justice Gunnar Strömmer that he is finalizing this. Since the Center Party has, however, written a motion on the matter, and also highlighted it in our committee debate this week, we wish to say something about the matter in order to address the various arguments being presented.

Madam Speaker! First of all: Today's order works well for Sweden's children and parents. We share the government's assessment.

The possibility for unmarried parents to digitally confirm parenthood has now been in effect for just over three years. According to information from Skatteverket, the proportion of digital confirmations of parenthood has increased every year, and statistics from 2024 show, according to the government, that 84 percent chose to confirm their parenthood digitally. The rules on digital confirmation of parenthood have therefore had a very large impact and mean that more children can have two legal parents in close proximity to the birth.

It has not emerged that the possibility of confirming parenthood would be perceived as being too limited. What is presented in the motion is therefore not an imminent problem that results in children being left without parents. On the other hand, the proposal could create major problems for women exposed to violence – more on the latter.

Madam Speaker! Secondly: When a couple marries, which in Sweden shall take place of free will and without coercion, a de facto legal agreement is also entered into between them. It is sufficient to read the Marriage Code and the Children and Parents Code to understand that.

A man who marries a woman becomes the guardian and father of the children the woman bears. No paternity tests are performed here. That he is the father of the children is presumed, that is, assumed. To be presumed to be the father and to shoulder the responsibility as a guardian is a far-reaching commitment and part of what follows from marriage.

Madam Speaker! To make the corresponding assumption that one makes for married spouses for any man who claims that he is the father of children growing up with any woman is something completely different. To get married, to enter into a legal agreement, is something different than not being married and not having any agreement. A man who is not married can, of course, not have the same obligations or rights as a man who is married and has entered into a legal agreement with a woman.

It actually becomes quite strange when the Center Party tries to portray it as if entered marriages play no role in terms of responsibility, obligations, and rights. It is clear that it does play a role!

Madam Speaker! For the third, and this is important: It is not that the law is not adapted because parents have not entered into marriage, but on the contrary. If an unmarried woman and an unmarried man agree on who is the father, this can simply be registered according to the current order, just as the government describes. There are no problems here. Society and the law are well adapted to and modernized according to this way of living. It is no strangeness.

But if a pregnant woman and a man do not agree on who is the father, a man should not be able to demand physical interventions or support from authorities and healthcare facilities to pursue his case against the pregnant woman.

The question to those who run this is therefore: How is it to be enforced? If a woman contradicts a man's claim – shall she then be forced to court to have her case examined? And what shall the court do? What tools does the proposer mean for the judges to have in order to enforce a man's wish to have a paternity confirmed before there is even a child?

Madam Speaker! What happens if the court makes the wrong decision? What if it turns out that the court said the man was not the father at all and that the woman was right all along! Is this even something we want to place in the hands of the courts?

The answer from the Social Democrats is no. That is not what we want. This type of bill cannot be implemented in a legally secure manner that protects women's power over their own bodies.

Madam Speaker! The fourth argument concerns violence in general and post-violence in particular, that is to say the violence that men repeatedly direct towards women after the relationship has ended. But the violence does not end. There is no "after" in post-violence, but rather it continues and continues, often supported and enabled by society and the legislation.

The law – what we are dealing with here in this house – gives violent men the right to harass women year in and year out. It is about multi-year division of property processes and repeated disputes that leave victims of violence in debt. It is about women who are forced to "cooperate" with men who have beaten them and the children, otherwise the mothers lose custody of the children. It is about persecution, where the law gives violent men many tools to continue stalking and harassment. The violence encircles the lives of women and children, and it affects health, finances, and life chances.

Madam Speaker! The civil law legislation has been blind to the violence and the aftermath of violence. It has been written as if the sun would always shine and no man would exercise violence against any woman. The legislator's naive view of the world has hit many children and women subjected to violence very hard. Often it concerns mothers.

We Social Democrats started cleaning this up when we were in government. We commissioned inquiries in order to be able to change the law. We have continued this work in the Riksdag, and we truly welcome that this government has continued what we started in a government position. It makes the work strong and sustainable when we are in agreement.

Madam Speaker! That is why we, of course, say no to creating a new civil law tool for violent men to be able to hunt women with. Based on the motion proposed, a violent man who has been left could use such a law to claim that the woman who left him is pregnant with his child.

What happens if she refuses? How is the state to guarantee the man the right to have paternity established before there is even a child? How far does the proposer want the state to go when it comes to bypassing women's rights to guarantee that the man's claim becomes a reality? It is about the man's so-called right to have the paternity he claims exists established before there is even a child.

The legislator should not place such a civil law tool in the hands of violent men. We Social Democrats and several others are fully in favor of cleaning up just such aberrations from civil law. The law should not enable post-violence, but the law should prevent violence. It should also punish violence.

Madam Speaker! We Social Democrats voted no to the announcement during the previous parliamentary term. We welcome that the government parties have now also landed on this position: that the announcement shall be finalized without being fulfilled. It shall not be implemented. It does not belong here.

The government's final processing of this bodes well for our ability to have long-term perspective and cross-bloc consensus on these issues, just as we have had in many others during the mandate period.

Madam Speaker! In conclusion: Today's debate has focused on the electronic submission of estate inventories. But since the government chose to finalize two announcements, one of which concerns paternity tests, my speech has also dealt with that. Based on the motion that has been raised and the arguments during the year, we have judged that this needs to be addressed. We hope that the mover takes a second look.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Martina Johansson (C)

Madam Speaker! It is exciting to have a debate on announcements when it concerns a bill that we are actually quite in agreement on. I could not help but request a reply based on a couple of aspects that Laila Naraghi mentioned in her speech, for which I will also thank her.

How was it now she expressed herself when it comes to entering into a marriage? She said that the man then gets a great responsibility, a lifelong responsibility, to be a parent, and that it is therefore completely logical that this occurs only when one is married. Then the man gets the full responsibility. But an unmarried mother also has that lifelong responsibility as long as the child lives! I still find it very difficult to understand what the difference is in the legal agreement.

The Center Party argues that one should be able to make a digital confirmation. But if the parents do not agree on who is the parent of the child, one must, of course, find an arrangement so that it is decided after the child is born, if it were the case that some form of genetic testing was needed. That is, after all, how it works today if they are not in agreement.

Since then, I have found the argumentation somewhat difficult when it concerns the child not having the father as a guardian if the man is violent. I can agree with that. But we cannot base a piece of legislation on the assumption that the majority of men are perpetrators of violence. I cannot interpret it any differently than that is what you mean. One starts from the premise that we cannot make this change because there may be men who are perpetrators of violence. Then we do not see this from the child's perspective. I am sorry, but there are also women who should not be guardians. And we never question that.

For me, it is important to take this step so that we can also have automatic guardianship in the next step.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Laila Naraghi (S)

Madam Speaker! Fundamentally, we say no to this because we believe we have an order that works well, and the current government shares that view. Today's order works well and poses no problem. That is the basis.

I truly welcome the Centre Party's clarification, Madam Speaker. If the parents are not in agreement, this should not happen before birth. But it does not appear in the motion, and it has not appeared previously, as I have understood, based on the Centre Party's statements. It is a very important clarification. Had it been done earlier, much of what we from the Social Democrats' side have presented here would not have been relevant. The Centre Party is welcome to clarify here.

What we want to make clear is this: If one has married, one has entered into an agreement, and that is something different than if one has not married. We mean that this should be obvious. Otherwise, marriage has no legal effect whatsoever. Having entered into a marriage is something different than not having done so. That is what we are trying to represent here. There is a difference between having married and not having married. If one has not married, one designs an arrangement that becomes good for the children based on that. We have such an arrangement today.

We have not expressed what the member is presenting here. I ask the member to read in the minutes how we expressed ourselves. What we say is that this shall not occur before birth and that the current order works well, i.e., that confirmation shall occur afterwards if one is not married. We say nothing other than this. One simply has to read the minutes.

We are also absolutely talking about it being the child's best interests that should be in focus. We are not talking about the genders of the parents when we in other matters talk about this.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Martina Johansson (C)

Madam Speaker! Then I must apologize if I have been unclear about exactly how this is to be designed. I will review our motion texts so that it becomes clear that it is about being able to do this and that it is based on being in agreement.

Then it is clear that there is a difference when one enters into a marriage. It is also about more than whether one presumes a parenthood or not. It is about, for example, how we handle assets and debts. It is about that we are responsible for supporting one another and about what should happen the day we eventually separate.

When it comes to access to sufficiently good parents, it plays no role from a child's perspective whether the parents are married or not. That is what I and the Center Party point out. To the extent that there is an agreement, parental status should be able to be confirmed before the child is born and in the next step, which is not handled today, also have the possibility of joint custody automatically. It should not be as it is today, that it is the woman who decides whether the man gets custody at the child's birth or not.

I actually have no follow-up question for the member, rather this was a clarification from my side.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Laila Naraghi (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you again, Martina Johansson, for this clarification! I believe it is a very important clarification. We are largely in agreement on these issues in our committee. Based on how the discussion has proceeded, however, we thought it was appropriate with a clarification in the debate.

Today's order works well. The Government accounts for that. Very many people use the opportunity for digital confirmation in close connection to the child coming into the world. It is very positive. Of course, children should have these rights. Fundamentally, it is about the children. When the child has come into the world, the child shall have the right to this. Here we are in complete agreement.

The Moderates may speak more about this later in the debate, but both this and the previous government have spoken about the administrative and management reasons why it would be too great a change to alter this so that it occurs before birth. It could place unreasonable workloads on health and medical care, something that the government today is not prepared to do, if this were to be included in the conversations that midwives have with expectant parents. It is also about what it would mean for personal identity numbers and so on.

For those who are interested, this is described under the heading "The Committee's considerations" in the report 2020/21:CU16 from the previous parliamentary term.

All this has been carefully examined by both the previous government and this government. We also have an order that works well. We simply agree with what the government says.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Mikael Eskilandersson (SD)

Madam Speaker! A question was posed regarding whether the parties that want a different system should explain how such a system would function. I, too, must take on that question.

I would, however, like to begin with something else. Laila Naraghi says that we have a system that works well. Do we really have that when thousands of children every year are born with only one parent? I do not think so. It works, but it does not work well. From the children's perspective, one should consider how to get a system that makes it so that more children are born with two parents, if one thinks that it is worth it.

The problem with the system is that you risk losing one of the parents along the way. When my own children were born, which is a short while ago now, it worked like this: first, you went to the midwife together with the expectant mother. We were cohabiting at the time, and the first thing they asked was if you were the father of the child. That is what you tell the midwife. Then I think: Shouldn't this already be picked up in the system? Why should one wait until after the child is born, then go to Skatteverket, and only then be allowed to become the father of the child?

If one is in agreement, lives together and lives under so-called marriage-like forms, one should actually be able to enter into an agreement even before the child is born regarding joint custody and who is actually the father – especially as long as everyone is in agreement. I also understand that it becomes a bit more complicated when one is not in agreement.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Laila Naraghi (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Mikael Eskilandersson, also for this clarification! As I understand the member, it is about when the parents are in agreement. I do not know, however, if it was completely clear, so the member is welcome to clarify that. Otherwise, it is, exactly as I perceived the member saying, something completely different.

I would like to take the liberty, now that I have the time here in the speaker's chair, to return to what the government said regarding exactly what the member is raising. I am reading from the committee's report on this from the previous parliamentary term, where the committee quotes the government's bill:

"An opportunity for digital confirmation of parenthood before the child's birth would also mean that the system needs to be built so that the confirmation is linked to the prospective mother's personal identity number instead of the child's personal identity number. Such an arrangement would presuppose a control function in the system to link the confirmation to a specific child after the child's birth. Furthermore, a need for purging functions would arise for situations where the pregnancy is terminated or the child is not born alive. There are thus several question marks regarding the robustness of a system for digital confirmation that allows a confirmation to be made before the child's birth. A system based on the confirmation being linked to the mother's personal identity number instead of the child's would further reasonably presuppose that the confirmation process can only be initiated by the mother and that she needs to indicate in the system which person should be given the opportunity to confirm the parenthood. Such an arrangement may be perceived as outdated and less equal than a system based on the confirmation originating from the child and which allows both parents to be equally involved in the process."

This was the basis for why we Social Democrats voted no to this announcement during the previous parliamentary term. As I understand it, this also forms the basis for the current government parties' no to this.

I want to believe that we in the Committee on Civil Affairs are also, in this matter, quite united after the clarifications from Centerpartiet and Sverigedemokraterna, but that we may land a bit differently on the how-question.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Mikael Eskilandersson (SD)

Madam Speaker! I would also like to bring up the scenario when there is no agreement. If there is a mother who is not sure who is the father of the child, it would be nice to offer her an opportunity to find out before the child is born because it is possible to do so. It is very simple to do it for someone who is not going to give birth to twins. It can be done with a simple blood test on the mother. A fair amount of blood tests are taken anyway during the time one is with the midwife, so I do not think anyone would notice a difference if a test was also taken to see who is actually the father of the child. It should be done voluntarily based on the mother wanting it. Otherwise, the investigation must be carried out afterwards. One cannot force any form of care on a person.

It would have been a significantly safer system if more children had had two parents when they were born. I do not buy the argument about system problems. We are living in 2026 anyway, according to the calendar. I also do not buy the reasoning that it is not possible to state who is the father of an unborn child before the child is born.

Let us compare with marriage. It is clear that marriage is more far-reaching, and there, inheritance rules and other things come into play, which also change. But just when it comes to the joint custody of the child, that part of the agreement should be able to be entered into voluntarily before the child is born, without it having to cause such enormous system problems that they cannot be handled. It feels like kicking the question down the road without having to take a stand.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Laila Naraghi (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank Mikael Eskilandersson again for the clarifications regarding voluntariness.

I conducted a review on our behalf of the arguments we saw against what has been put forward previously, and I will not repeat them. I note that the previous government and the current government think that the order works well, and one does not want to change it. It is a question that has been well-examined by investigations, by officials, and by the Ministry of Justice. The question has been looked at.

I still want to believe that when two governments, with several competing parties, reach the same conclusion, the issue is well-examined. It is not about party politics, but it is about a well-functioning order that we believe is the best for Sweden's children.

We can also observe that many solve the problem quickly and easily, as part of the regulatory simplifications – as the member expressed it in their speech. This is not an urgent problem. There is a well-functioning order. The previous government and the current government are in agreement. The issue is well-examined, and we can observe that it is good that there is a consensus.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Ludvig Ceimertz (M)

Madam Speaker! I begin my speech with a reminder for those who are listening to or watching the debate and who may be new to it, namely that we are debating a bill on the electronic submission of estate inventories. As expected, we have wandered far from the bill in the debate, for understandable reasons.

The proposition may at first glance appear to be a purely technical matter, but in reality, it is about something very concrete, namely making it easier for people in one of life's most difficult situations – when a loved one has passed away.

When someone passes away, an inventory of the estate must be drawn up. It shows who the heirs are, what assets and debts exist, and what shall form the basis for the inheritance. It thus fulfills a completely central function in the administration of the estate and often serves as a document of identification for the estate.

Madam Speaker! Every year, the Swedish Tax Agency handles a very large number of estate inventories. For many people, however, this is something that is done only once in a lifetime, often in grief and in a situation where much else needs to be arranged and managed. Against that background, it is reasonable that the state does its best to simplify the process for people, to make it as simple as possible for those who have been affected. That is what the proposal aims for, namely to make life a little easier.

The bill means that estate inventories and death notifications can be submitted electronically to Skatteverket. At the same time, the possibility to use paper documents is maintained for those who wish to do so and feel more comfortable with that solution. It is therefore a matter of making it easier for people, and it can make a difference. It is not just about making it easier, but it can also reduce the risk of errors, simplify for supplementary information, and contribute to shorter processing times while simultaneously becoming a more efficient management for the authorities. This is a completely natural step in the work of modernizing the public administration, taking advantage of technology, and making it easier for people in everyday life.

The bill also contains some additional complementary changes. Among others, it is proposed that the requirement to submit certified copies of the estate inventory be removed, as this requirement lacks practical significance and complicates the handling. Furthermore, the designation of *gode män* (guardians) in the estate inventory proceedings is replaced with *förrättningspersoner* (proceedings persons), simply to develop the language and become clearer so that no confusion occurs with other things.

Madam Speaker! The bill also presents – as much of the debate today has been about – two previous announcements from the Riksdag. One announcement concerns quality assurance in custody investigations. In June 2024, the government tasked the Agency for Family Law and Parenthood Support and the National Board of Health and Welfare with strengthening the social services' work with risk assessments in matters of custody, housing, and visitation. The assignment aimed to strengthen the quality of these investigations in a broad sense. Against that background, the government assesses that the announcement has been fulfilled.

The second announcement concerns digital confirmation of parenthood before the child's birth. Now, I do not represent the government, as was pointed out a moment ago, but I represent a party that sits in the government. We stood behind the announcement to develop proposals to make it possible to confirm parenthood before the child's birth – in connection with the law being changed in 2021.

Since then, we have followed how the new law has developed and what effect it has had. It is only to be noted that the legislation that the previous government implemented, with broad support in the chamber including from us, has been successful. It is now possible to confirm parenthood digitally in a simple way at Skatteverket after a child's birth. A large proportion of the country's parents choose to do so. Reality has thus changed to a great extent compared to when the announcement was made. Since we no longer see the problems that existed then, the government has made the assessment that the announcement is satisfied because that change has been effective.

Madam Speaker! It is important that legislation develops in step with society. When technology gives us new opportunities to make contacts with authorities simpler, faster, and more purposeful, it is important that we keep up. The bill is a good example of this, and it is part of a larger body of work where we create rules that simplify contacts with authorities. It is about simplifications for people in difficult situations, streamlining of the authorities' work, and modernization of the regulatory frameworks without compromising legal certainty. Against that background, I believe that the government's proposal is well-balanced and welcome.

I vote in favor of the committee's proposal and thus the government bill.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Martina Johansson (C)

Madam Speaker! This is a somewhat different debate where we do not spend most of our time on the bill itself, which we have, as we said, agreed upon. The previous speaker has described the good parts of the bill.

I intend to devote my speech to what I consider to be crazy and incorrect, and that is that the government is using this bill to write off two announcements. I and the Center Party do not consider them to be satisfied. In substance, they do not belong here, and they are, as said, not satisfied.

One announcement concerns quality. The Government dismisses it because they have given assignments to two agencies regarding the development of methods and risk assessments. But the announcement is actually about how quality has been affected in practice. There is nothing wrong with uniformity and risk assessments. It is something that I and the Center Party often request, both when it concerns family law cases and when it concerns social services for children and young people. But we still do not know if quality has been affected in practice when it comes to investigations surrounding custody disputes.

I think it is a pervasive deficiency in many cases and discussions that we write things off and say that we have improved the quality when we have given different authorities assignments. We do not know, Madam Speaker, what the result has been. I am not going to start any new debate, but this is something that I see throughout in many parts that the government is moving forward with within many different areas. It is truly a deficiency when we do not follow up on how the quality has become in practice.

Madam Speaker! The second announcement, which we have debated most here tonight, the government also writes off, as it were. It is said that the majority uses the current system and that no change is requested. But there are very many parents who actually request a change. They want to feel that they are a legally equally worthy parent when the child is born as the one who carries the child. It is a difference, I believe, if the child has one parent or two parents when it is born.

It is possible that the current government has changed its position, but during the last parliamentary term, the Center Party was in complete agreement with the Moderates, Christian Democrats, and Liberals. The Sweden Democrats still maintain the position that this should be able to occur before the child's birth. What are then the reasons for having changed position? Is it that the current order works well? It does not, as stated, work well for all children and all parents. A substantial investigation is needed to see how we can improve this. It is about the child's right to both of its parents already when it is born.

I choose to conclude my speech here. I have had exchanges of remarks and presented the Center Party's positions. I move for approval of reservation number 3.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on March 11.)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)